Trump voters have wholly bought into the nationalist, racist, xenophobic, isolationist, anti-free trade policies that Trump and Fox news have told them are the key to restoring the good old days, when a high school education was all you needed to support your family and black people called you Sir.

I oppose Trump, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with unelected officials taking the kind of steps described in Woodward's book. It sounds like a "shadow" 25th ammendment action to me. My conscience is particularly ill at ease because they sound like steps I agree with (i.e. ones that prevent needless war or harm).

But what if by doing so theyíre preventing a needless nuclear war?

I'm sure that is the point and speaks volumes more to just how unintelligent and unstable Trump really is. They won't even let him speak to Mueller because they know for a fact he will perjure himself.

Trump voters have wholly bought into the nationalist, racist, xenophobic, isolationist, anti-free trade policies that Trump and Fox news have told them are the key to restoring the good old days, when a high school education was all you needed to support your family and black people called you Sir.

Trump voters: what do you see that the people who work with Trump don't?

A certain type of voter really likes the idea of someone who isn't very smart being in charge. There has always been an anti-intellectual movement in the US.

Remember the kids in school that picked on other kids who studied and earned good grades? A lot of them grew up to be Trump voters.

OMFG! :D Holy shit, you just nailed that. I think of the kids I went to high school with who are now Trump voters and... yup.

Just checking in

Breathtakingly arrogant, intolerant, scornful, ignorant broad-brush stereotyping going on in the echo chamber here. Disappointing to see from intelligent people who should know better.

God bless. Carry on. MAGA.

First, I'm sorry, but literally the people I know from my high school class who now support Trump fit the description. Sorry, it's true. Are all Trump supporters former anti-intellectual high school bullies? Nope. But anecdotally, I know quite a few. And quite honestly, the ones I see on Facebook are still spewing the same sort of nonsense.

Trump voters have wholly bought into the nationalist, racist, xenophobic, isolationist, anti-free trade policies that Trump and Fox news have told them are the key to restoring the good old days, when a high school education was all you needed to support your family and black people called you Sir.

Breathtakingly arrogant, intolerant, scornful, ignorant broad-brush stereotyping going on in the echo chamber here. Disappointing to see from intelligent people who should know better.

You're reading it all wrong, acroy. I think Trump's policies are nationalist, isolationst, anti-free trade, etc, and I'm pretty sure you agree with that part. Trump certainly does, and uses those same words himself. I then pointed out that Trump voters agree with those positions, and that they like it when Trump blames immigrants for their problems. That is neither intolerant nor scornful, that's me saying that Trump's voters like Trump's policies. Why are you upset by that?

Like it or not, everybody, this is America now. This is what we have become. Trump is everything we deserve, our worst impulses writ large and put on the most public of stages.

I for one am interested to hear Acroy's take on things. I expect to disagree with him, but he is pretty clear in his support for Trump, and that is a useful contribution to the conversation, provided he is willing to engage instead of just using a broad brush to say that the entire conversation is taking a broad brush to Trump (ironically).

I for one am interested to hear Acroy's take on things. I expect to disagree with him, but he is pretty clear in his support for Trump, and that is a useful contribution to the conversation, provided he is willing to engage instead of just using a broad brush to say that the entire conversation is taking a broad brush to Trump (ironically).

Thatís not really something Acroy does, unfortunately. He prefers to troll. Which, you know, is definitely easier than discussing in good faith.

What I find fascinating about this is that Trump has railed for months that there's a "deep state" of Democrats and Obama-era officials subverting his administration, while at the same time, his own appointees and advisors kind of are acting as a "deep state" and subverting his administration.

The Times has an op-ed from an "internal resistance" member. I'm inclined to believe it's true, if only because some of Trump's tweets go nowhere, indicating there is some check to his craziness. I assumed his lawyers always had someone on active duty 24/7, refreshing his twitter account, but it could just be after-the-fact sabotage.

It'll be interesting to see the details in 10 years. Is it organized or informal? Do they exchange snippets of conversation in the hallway or is it a lot of lone actors working by themselves? If someone sees crazy on the desk, and can't get to it in time, are there allies that can help with distraction?

+1

I think once he is not the sitting president anymore, there will be a flood of stories from this administration. I can not wait until everything to come out in the open.

What I find fascinating about this is that Trump has railed for months that there's a "deep state" of Democrats and Obama-era officials subverting his administration, while at the same time, his own appointees and advisors kind of are acting as a "deep state" and subverting his administration.

The Times has an op-ed from an "internal resistance" member. I'm inclined to believe it's true, if only because some of Trump's tweets go nowhere, indicating there is some check to his craziness. I assumed his lawyers always had someone on active duty 24/7, refreshing his twitter account, but it could just be after-the-fact sabotage.

It'll be interesting to see the details in 10 years. Is it organized or informal? Do they exchange snippets of conversation in the hallway or is it a lot of lone actors working by themselves? If someone sees crazy on the desk, and can't get to it in time, are there allies that can help with distraction?

+1

I think once he is not the sitting president anymore, there will be a flood of stories from this administration. I can not wait until everything to come out in the open.

The main barrier here (I believe) is the rather draconian non-disclosure (ND) agreements every upper-level employee has signed. Assuming they are all akin to the one Amarosa revealed, they curtail any negative messages about DJT not just now but even after he has left office. In the past he has sued extensively to prevent former employees and associates from disparaging him, and continues to do so (e.g. Daniels)

If the NDs were to be invalidated somehow, I imagine we'd see an absolute deluge of staffers rush to tell their tales. One wonders if congress could pass a law negating ND agreements under a transparency of government act (with limitations of course for nationally sensitive information). I also suspect that stories will come out after DJT passes away (he is 72, and its about even odds that an overweight white male with poor died will live another 10 years). Suppressing information in the long term is going to prove to be nearly impossible. I suspect that in 10-20 years historians -aided by the shear volume of digitized correspondence, tweets, interviews, and 'tell-all' accounts from insiders - will show this administration in an unprecedentedly negative light.

What I find fascinating about this is that Trump has railed for months that there's a "deep state" of Democrats and Obama-era officials subverting his administration, while at the same time, his own appointees and advisors kind of are acting as a "deep state" and subverting his administration.

The Times has an op-ed from an "internal resistance" member. I'm inclined to believe it's true, if only because some of Trump's tweets go nowhere, indicating there is some check to his craziness. I assumed his lawyers always had someone on active duty 24/7, refreshing his twitter account, but it could just be after-the-fact sabotage.

It'll be interesting to see the details in 10 years. Is it organized or informal? Do they exchange snippets of conversation in the hallway or is it a lot of lone actors working by themselves? If someone sees crazy on the desk, and can't get to it in time, are there allies that can help with distraction?

+1

I think once he is not the sitting president anymore, there will be a flood of stories from this administration. I can not wait until everything to come out in the open.

The main barrier here (I believe) is the rather draconian non-disclosure (ND) agreements every upper-level employee has signed. Assuming they are all akin to the one Amarosa revealed, they curtail any negative messages about DJT not just now but even after he has left office. In the past he has sued extensively to prevent former employees and associates from disparaging him, and continues to do so (e.g. Daniels)

If the NDs were to be invalidated somehow, I imagine we'd see an absolute deluge of staffers rush to tell their tales. One wonders if congress could pass a law negating ND agreements under a transparency of government act (with limitations of course for nationally sensitive information). I also suspect that stories will come out after DJT passes away (he is 72, and its about even odds that an overweight white male with poor died will live another 10 years). Suppressing information in the long term is going to prove to be nearly impossible. I suspect that in 10-20 years historians -aided by the shear volume of digitized correspondence, tweets, interviews, and 'tell-all' accounts from insiders - will show this administration in an unprecedentedly negative light.

I thought NDAs were invalid when it comes to government employees anyway. Is that not the case?

I oppose Trump, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with unelected officials taking the kind of steps described in Woodward's book. It sounds like a "shadow" 25th ammendment action to me. My conscience is particularly ill at ease because they sound like steps I agree with (i.e. ones that prevent needless war or harm).

talltexan, I'm with you on this one. While it's comforting that people are preventing Trump from going off the deep end, I hope this does not set a dangerous precedent. Because, sure, it's fine when it's happening to an exceedingly short-sighted President with the impulse control of a pubescent teenager, but what if this makes others feel justified in doing so in future administrations? Or what if this op-ed was written by someone in the Obama administration aligned with others who disliked the direction of his domestic or foreign policy?

I loathe almost everything that Trump and his supporters stand for, but as you say, I'm really uncomfortable with this whole development. And on the other hand, as a friend of mine says, the supposed Internal Resistance may be keeping Trump's finger off the nuclear launch button, but they certainly seem to be fine with him gutting the EPA, travel ban, federal court nominees, racism, etc., etc. They seem only to be stopping the most extreme behaviors and are fine with the outcome of all the rest of this administration's shenanigans. What a shit show.

I thought NDAs were invalid when it comes to government employees anyway. Is that not the case?

I'm sure we're going to get a test of how valid they are with Omarosa Manigault. The Trump Campaign filed an arbitration complaint against her a couple weeks ago arguing violation of the NDA in New York. Depends on how the arbiter rules, i guess.

I'm also not sure how much I like the idea of people within the administration purposely sabotaging the president's agenda. First off, because it sets a dangerous precedent. But secondly, because I feel it is keeping us from seeing the full breadth of his idiocy and carelessness. I want his supporters to face the effects of their choices unfiltered and unaltered. Most may not care, but many would (hopefully) be regretful of their decision.

talltexan, I'm with you on this one. While it's comforting that people are preventing Trump from going off the deep end, I hope this does not set a dangerous precedent. Because, sure, it's fine when it's happening to an exceedingly short-sighted President with the impulse control of a pubescent teenager, but what if this makes others feel justified in doing so in future administrations? Or what if this op-ed was written by someone in the Obama administration aligned with others who disliked the direction of his domestic or foreign policy?

If the president doesn`t realize that the guy he wanted killed is still alive, in charge of his country, and not dead, then that sounds like an impulse decision and if he doesn`t bring up a hassle about it, the aides can side-step it. If he keeps at the subject, then he will probably get his way. So we are seeing people hoping that by making it more difficult, he then gives up and goes to something else. Not great, but not all that shadow governmenty. You'd think Trump would be aware of which orders he gave people, and then can check if they were carried out.

I'm also not sure how much I like the idea of people within the administration purposely sabotaging the president's agenda.

That whole NYTimes op-ed from the disgruntled senior staffer seems almost too reality-tv-perfect to be coincidence. I mean sure, maybe someone in the administration who has voluntarily ruined their own life in order to protect the country would jeopardize that decision by revealing themselves, but it seems just as likely that this was written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries by suggesting that there are already neutralizing plans afoot. I think Donald Trump is a buffoon in most every respect, but one thing he does know about is how to manufacture dramatic subplots in order to keep his audience tuning in week after week.

That whole NYTimes op-ed from the disgruntled senior staffer seems almost too reality-tv-perfect to be coincidence. I mean sure, maybe someone in the administration who has voluntarily ruined their own life in order to protect the country would jeopardize that decision by revealing themselves, but it seems just as likely that this was written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries by suggesting that there are already neutralizing plans afoot. I think Donald Trump is a buffoon in most every respect, but one thing he does know about is how to manufacture dramatic subplots in order to keep his audience tuning in week after week.

IDK - I don't get how this helps Trump. If it were designed for that purpose, I'm not sure how portraying the president as unfit to lead - describing him as 'amoral,' that his views are generally 'antidemocratic', and that he is overall an 'ineffective' leader. If anything it seems to be a strong endorsement for removal via the 25th amendment, or impeachment. It seems to me that a loyalist would have more positive things to so - perhaps that this is 'calculated chaos' or something similar, while his hand-picked 'best' are dutifully working towards MAGA.

who knows - I suspect the source will be unmasked sometime in the years to come.

I think Woodward's book doesn't help him at all. But the op-ed piece released the same day could be part of a larger effort, not necessarily orchestrated by the President but by his toadies working to keep him in power.

And they can get away with it, because the ~30% of the country that supports Donald Trump is never going to read Woodward's book OR the NY Times. They will eagerly accept Trump's description of the book as a dirty smear piece, despite the carefully documented reporting. These people only get their news from Fox or Trump's twitter feed, and those "sources" confirm that Trump is doing a fantastic job despite these deep state actors and their witch hunt.

Since his supporters will not be swayed by anything that happens in other media format, the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals. It wasn't written so that Bubba and Todd at the white power march would notice that Trump is struggling, it was written so that Bradyn and Ashley and all of their vblogger friends at their coworking hub would feel better about what's happening in the white house. As targeting messaging, it soothes their concerns and gives them hope that letting the process play out might not be so bad after all, so why agitate for impeachment and risk a backlash?

I think Woodward's book doesn't help him at all. But the op-ed piece released the same day could be part of a larger effort, not necessarily orchestrated by the President but by his toadies working to keep him in power.

And they can get away with it, because the ~30% of the country that supports Donald Trump is never going to read Woodward's book OR the NY Times. They will eagerly accept Trump's description of the book as a dirty smear piece, despite the carefully documented reporting. These people only get their news from Fox or Trump's twitter feed, and those "sources" confirm that Trump is doing a fantastic job despite these deep state actors and their witch hunt.

Since his supporters will not be swayed by anything that happens in other media format, the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals. It wasn't written so that Bubba and Todd at the white power march would notice that Trump is struggling, it was written so that Bradyn and Ashley and all of their vblogger friends at their coworking hub would feel better about what's happening in the white house. As targeting messaging, it soothes their concerns and gives them hope that letting the process play out might not be so bad after all, so why agitate for impeachment and risk a backlash?

Jesus. But can this shitshow convince Bradyn and Ashley get off their asses and actually register to vote? And bring some friends with them? We are running out of time for 20somethings to get their acts together. We are approximately 30 days out from voter registration deadlines closing in a huge group of states. This is the final stretch.

Are you reading this any know anyone who isn't registered? Now is the time to woo your friends with beer and pizza voting parties.

Jesus. But can this shitshow convince Bradyn and Ashley get off their asses and actually register to vote? And bring some friends with them? We are running out of time for 20somethings to get their acts together.

While young people historically have lower turnout, their turnout increased in the 2016 election greater than any other age group (and they overwhelmingly voted Democrat). We have the apathetic middle aged crowd to blame for Trump (who did not turn out as well as they were needed), and the rightwing older generation (who always comes out of the woodwork).

You're right that young people are the hope... but they shouldn't get the blame.They've gotten off their asses (voting-wise) more than any young generation in recent memory.

talltexan, I'm with you on this one. While it's comforting that people are preventing Trump from going off the deep end, I hope this does not set a dangerous precedent. Because, sure, it's fine when it's happening to an exceedingly short-sighted President with the impulse control of a pubescent teenager, but what if this makes others feel justified in doing so in future administrations? Or what if this op-ed was written by someone in the Obama administration aligned with others who disliked the direction of his domestic or foreign policy?

If the president doesn`t realize that the guy he wanted killed is still alive, in charge of his country, and not dead, then that sounds like an impulse decision and if he doesn`t bring up a hassle about it, the aides can side-step it. If he keeps at the subject, then he will probably get his way. So we are seeing people hoping that by making it more difficult, he then gives up and goes to something else. Not great, but not all that shadow governmenty. You'd think Trump would be aware of which orders he gave people, and then can check if they were carried out.

I want you to do this.....Yes sir! Btw, sir... have you look at that shiny toys that we have here? Oh.... shiny toys (and forgetting what he wanted to do earlier)

He changes his minds so often, tbh I am not sure if he is out of his depth, thus the flip-flopping, or he just can not remember/aware what he said previously.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans. As in, "He may be a brash idiot but the adults in the room are still working towards a conservative utopia. Don't forget to vote this November!"

It's actually ingenious. It creates an excuse for conservatives who are disgusted by Trump's craziness but still are pleased by his/Congress' policies.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans. As in, "He may be a brash idiot but the adults in the room are still working towards a conservative utopia. Don't forget to vote this November!"

It's actually ingenious. It creates an excuse for conservatives who are disgusted by Trump's craziness but still are pleased by his/Congress' policies.

When your own internal justification goes like this: "well the guy in charge is amoral, ineffective, race-baiting, vindictive and his international ideals are the antithesis of my party - but never fear because some appointed underlings are doing their best to 'manage' him" --- you've got some serious reflection to do about what you are actually supporting and why.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans.

I think I like your take better than my first one. In either case, the op-ed wasn't targeted at Trump's base voters, who seem to genuinely approve of his most extreme positions and won't read it or believe anything about it anyway.

But you've probably done a better job of identifying the real target audience than I did. An op-ed published by an establishment republican in order to reassure other establishment republicans that they are subverting Trump's stupidity is not too far off from my original assessment that this was "written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries" but farther away from my thought that "the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals." It's probably not liberals, it's probably conservatives that don't like Trump.

edit: I'm reading all of today's denials from various suspected authors of the op-ed. They all seem very carefully worded to me, and I suspect it may have been authored by two (or more) individuals together. That would allow everyone involved to semi-legitimately claim they are not responsible for whatever part of it they wish to deny.

edit 2: a more careful reading of the op-ed makes it clear to me that "senior official" could mean lots of things, including any one of the literally thousands of political appointees at obscure government agencies (quick, someone name the director of the Bureau of Land Management without googling). Most of these people have never even met Trump. It's probably not John Kelly or Jeff Sessions who wrote that thing, it's probably some unknown bureaucrat that nobody has ever heard of, who is trying to highlight that their obscure agency is still going about it's business despite Trump's continuedl efforts to undermine everything.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans.

I think I like your take better than my first one. In either case, the op-ed wasn't targeted at Trump's base voters, who seem to genuinely approve of his most extreme positions and won't read it or believe anything about it anyway.

But you've probably done a better job of identifying the real target audience than I did. An op-ed published by an establishment republican in order to reassure other establishment republicans that they are subverting Trump's stupidity is not too far off from my original assessment that this was "written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries" but farther away from my thought that "the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals." It's probably not liberals, it's probably conservatives that don't like Trump.

I think that the letter is strategic, and clearly intended to provide a soft landing for those who want an excuse to feel okay about Trump remaining in office because they get some legislative carrots on a stick. It is, effectively, what has been stated all along in this thread that the GOP will bankrupt themselves morally to keep a rubber stamp (even if the stamp misses sometimes).

But, let's think about how fucked up this is for a second. Do we think that McConnell and/or Ryan explicitly knew about this? If so, is there culpability? The actions described are directly interfering with the process of government. While I agree that within a narrow view, the actions may be viewed as morally correct, this is a very dangerous precedent to accept. This is not a whistleblower. This is a subverter of democracy. The GOP is smart enough to be able to say, "You know what, we love Donny, but he is old and showing signs of dementia. It is best for the country to remove him from office with the highest honors for service to his country." The GOP is not doing this. The op-ed writer is just as bad as the rest of the administration and also pretty clearly stating that they don't actually honor the structure of our democracy so long as they get some short-term wins. The op-ed is a great distraction from the (much more credible) Woodward book, and also an attempt to manipulate disaffected voters... Elections do matter, and if a person is actually as bad as stated in the letter (and everywhere else), then they should be removed from office. What good does getting some wins on legislation do you if you burn it all down in the process? And if McConnell and Ryan explicitly knew about this intentional subversion, "Lock em up" too. Just because we don't like Trump does not make this okay. Again, and as said often in early 2017, this is not normal.

This is what happens when you foster a culture of corruption, though. Trump has made no secret of his contempt for customs, traditions, rules, and laws. He has encouraged all of his people to go rogue, and brags about how this is a brilliant leadership style designed to bring out the best in people by pitting them against each other. In his world, there is no "right" there is only "winning" and how you get there doesn't matter. Did you ever watch The Apprentice? I did not, but I understand there was lots of backstabbing and shading dealings.

This is how Trump wanted his administration to run. This is the example he set. This is the white house he built. This is "the best people" doing their best thing.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans.

I think I like your take better than my first one. In either case, the op-ed wasn't targeted at Trump's base voters, who seem to genuinely approve of his most extreme positions and won't read it or believe anything about it anyway.

But you've probably done a better job of identifying the real target audience than I did. An op-ed published by an establishment republican in order to reassure other establishment republicans that they are subverting Trump's stupidity is not too far off from my original assessment that this was "written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries" but farther away from my thought that "the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals." It's probably not liberals, it's probably conservatives that don't like Trump.

I think that the letter is strategic, and clearly intended to provide a soft landing for those who want an excuse to feel okay about Trump remaining in office because they get some legislative carrots on a stick. It is, effectively, what has been stated all along in this thread that the GOP will bankrupt themselves morally to keep a rubber stamp (even if the stamp misses sometimes).

But, let's think about how fucked up this is for a second. Do we think that McConnell and/or Ryan explicitly knew about this? If so, is there culpability? The actions described are directly interfering with the process of government. While I agree that within a narrow view, the actions may be viewed as morally correct, this is a very dangerous precedent to accept. This is not a whistleblower. This is a subverter of democracy. The GOP is smart enough to be able to say, "You know what, we love Donny, but he is old and showing signs of dementia. It is best for the country to remove him from office with the highest honors for service to his country." The GOP is not doing this. The op-ed writer is just as bad as the rest of the administration and also pretty clearly stating that they don't actually honor the structure of our democracy so long as they get some short-term wins. The op-ed is a great distraction from the (much more credible) Woodward book, and also an attempt to manipulate disaffected voters... Elections do matter, and if a person is actually as bad as stated in the letter (and everywhere else), then they should be removed from office. What good does getting some wins on legislation do you if you burn it all down in the process? And if McConnell and Ryan explicitly knew about this intentional subversion, "Lock em up" too. Just because we don't like Trump does not make this okay. Again, and as said often in early 2017, this is not normal.

What culture is this subversion (assuming true) setting for the future? What young staffers, interns, and military officers are seeing the top dogs do this, and now think this is okay to do whenever they disagree with their bosses? How far into the government will the mindset seep? I would hope that the ďadults in the roomĒ would be able to see that they are getting short term victories while shoving the consequences for others to deal with down the road.

Also, how do you feel about the Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and many others lying to your face with their denials?

I donít know what the right answer is, but this is not it. I also expect that those who have spent years in positions of the highest authority to find solutions that I canít.

Yeah, I'm guessing that instead of a placating op-ed for liberals, it's more of a calming signal for establishment Republicans.

I think I like your take better than my first one. In either case, the op-ed wasn't targeted at Trump's base voters, who seem to genuinely approve of his most extreme positions and won't read it or believe anything about it anyway.

But you've probably done a better job of identifying the real target audience than I did. An op-ed published by an establishment republican in order to reassure other establishment republicans that they are subverting Trump's stupidity is not too far off from my original assessment that this was "written by a Trump loyalist who is just trying to calm the impeachment cries" but farther away from my thought that "the target audience for a NY Times op-ed is just liberals." It's probably not liberals, it's probably conservatives that don't like Trump.

I think that the letter is strategic, and clearly intended to provide a soft landing for those who want an excuse to feel okay about Trump remaining in office because they get some legislative carrots on a stick. It is, effectively, what has been stated all along in this thread that the GOP will bankrupt themselves morally to keep a rubber stamp (even if the stamp misses sometimes).

But, let's think about how fucked up this is for a second. Do we think that McConnell and/or Ryan explicitly knew about this? If so, is there culpability? The actions described are directly interfering with the process of government. While I agree that within a narrow view, the actions may be viewed as morally correct, this is a very dangerous precedent to accept. This is not a whistleblower. This is a subverter of democracy. The GOP is smart enough to be able to say, "You know what, we love Donny, but he is old and showing signs of dementia. It is best for the country to remove him from office with the highest honors for service to his country." The GOP is not doing this. The op-ed writer is just as bad as the rest of the administration and also pretty clearly stating that they don't actually honor the structure of our democracy so long as they get some short-term wins. The op-ed is a great distraction from the (much more credible) Woodward book, and also an attempt to manipulate disaffected voters... Elections do matter, and if a person is actually as bad as stated in the letter (and everywhere else), then they should be removed from office. What good does getting some wins on legislation do you if you burn it all down in the process? And if McConnell and Ryan explicitly knew about this intentional subversion, "Lock em up" too. Just because we don't like Trump does not make this okay. Again, and as said often in early 2017, this is not normal.

Burning it all down means degrading our democratic institutions like DOJ etc. Burning it all down means degrading our relationships with our closest allies. Burning it all down means degrading our non-governmental societal pillars such as a free press and decent civil discourse. Burning it down means having the president give voice and cover to white nationalists and conspiracy nuts. Burning it all down means ripping children from their parents and throwing them in chain link cells. Burning it all down means breaking treaties and agreements made in good faith.

But hey, at least the GOP gets to pass a big tax cut for the wealthy and then complain about the budget deficit as a justification to gut social security and medicare!

This is what happens when you foster a culture of corruption, though. Trump has made no secret of his contempt for customs, traditions, rules, and laws. He has encouraged all of his people to go rogue, and brags about how this is a brilliant leadership style designed to bring out the best in people by pitting them against each other. In his world, there is no "right" there is only "winning" and how you get there doesn't matter. Did you ever watch The Apprentice? I did not, but I understand there was lots of backstabbing and shading dealings.

This is how Trump wanted his administration to run. This is the example he set. This is the white house he built. This is "the best people" doing their best thing.

Like Trump predicted, I'm already tired of all this "winning". I'd really like to go back to a time when "winning" was less-so, when I didn't know (or care) who the assistant deputy of the FBI was, the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees or check the president's twitter feed for high-level terminations.

First, I'm sorry, but literally the people I know from my high school class who now support Trump fit the description. Sorry, it's true. Are all Trump supporters former anti-intellectual high school bullies? Nope. But anecdotally, I know quite a few. And quite honestly, the ones I see on Facebook are still spewing the same sort of nonsense.

Same for DW and I. We are different ages. Both our groups of classmates have Trump voters who largely fit this description.

Don't be mad at us, question why Trump voters are the way they are or why the GOP couldn't field a more persuasive alternative to Trump or why the various demographics backed him vs one of the other GOp candidates.

If Trump was the candidate I voted for at this point I'd probably deny ever voting for him. He's not effective and he is an embarrassment. It isn't the things people have said about him, its the things he has said/done himself.

What culture is this subversion (assuming true) setting for the future? What young staffers, interns, and military officers are seeing the top dogs do this, and now think this is okay to do whenever they disagree with their bosses? How far into the government will the mindset seep? I would hope that the ďadults in the roomĒ would be able to see that they are getting short term victories while shoving the consequences for others to deal with down the road.

Also, how do you feel about the Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and many others lying to your face with their denials?

I donít know what the right answer is, but this is not it. I also expect that those who have spent years in positions of the highest authority to find solutions that I canít.

I understand what you are saying but don't necessarily agree. I sincerely hope America learns a lesson form this and it motivates people to get to the polls. There is quite frankly no excuse to have another Trump in the White House, ever! I'm quite certain you can look back through history and not find this level of inefficiency, corruption, dishonesty and utter ignorance that would require intervention to prevent tragic outcomes. And I sincerely hope we don't have to witness it again.

I think when the smoke finally clears and Trump is out of office, he is going to royally regret ever running and winning. TBH I think he already does. It's much easier to keep your racism, misogyny, bigotry, serial adultery and utter ignorance out of the limelight being a failed businessman verse being President. And nobody really gives a shit about your shoddy business dealings with a foreign government.

What culture is this subversion (assuming true) setting for the future? What young staffers, interns, and military officers are seeing the top dogs do this, and now think this is okay to do whenever they disagree with their bosses? How far into the government will the mindset seep? I would hope that the ďadults in the roomĒ would be able to see that they are getting short term victories while shoving the consequences for others to deal with down the road.

Also, how do you feel about the Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and many others lying to your face with their denials?

I donít know what the right answer is, but this is not it. I also expect that those who have spent years in positions of the highest authority to find solutions that I canít.

I understand what you are saying but don't necessarily agree. I sincerely hope America learns a lesson form this and it motivates people to get to the polls. There is quite frankly no excuse to have another Trump in the White House, ever! I'm quite certain you can look back through history and not find this level of inefficiency, corruption, dishonesty and utter ignorance that would require intervention to prevent tragic outcomes. And I sincerely hope we don't have to witness it again.

I think when the smoke finally clears and Trump is out of office, he is going to royally regret ever running and winning. TBH I think he already does. It's much easier to keep your racism, misogyny, bigotry, serial adultery and utter ignorance out of the limelight being a failed businessman verse being President. And nobody really gives a shit about your shoddy business dealings with a foreign government.

The Warren Harding administration was the most corrupt of the 20th century. Voters were frustrated with the failures of Wilson's post-war diplomacy and the high inflation that was part of a war time economy, and they installed a Republican President who owed too many favors to too many people. Harding never had to face the music because he died two years into his term.

But the country did pretty well, with eight straight years of economic growth. We all know how it ended, though.

What culture is this subversion (assuming true) setting for the future? What young staffers, interns, and military officers are seeing the top dogs do this, and now think this is okay to do whenever they disagree with their bosses? How far into the government will the mindset seep? I would hope that the ďadults in the roomĒ would be able to see that they are getting short term victories while shoving the consequences for others to deal with down the road.

Also, how do you feel about the Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and many others lying to your face with their denials?

I donít know what the right answer is, but this is not it. I also expect that those who have spent years in positions of the highest authority to find solutions that I canít.

I understand what you are saying but don't necessarily agree. I sincerely hope America learns a lesson form this and it motivates people to get to the polls. There is quite frankly no excuse to have another Trump in the White House, ever! I'm quite certain you can look back through history and not find this level of inefficiency, corruption, dishonesty and utter ignorance that would require intervention to prevent tragic outcomes. And I sincerely hope we don't have to witness it again.

I think when the smoke finally clears and Trump is out of office, he is going to royally regret ever running and winning. TBH I think he already does. It's much easier to keep your racism, misogyny, bigotry, serial adultery and utter ignorance out of the limelight being a failed businessman verse being President. And nobody really gives a shit about your shoddy business dealings with a foreign government.

The Warren Harding administration was the most corrupt of the 20th century. Voters were frustrated with the failures of Wilson's post-war diplomacy and the high inflation that was part of a war time economy, and they installed a Republican President who owed too many favors to too many people. Harding never had to face the music because he died two years into his term.

But the country did pretty well, with eight straight years of economic growth. We all know how it ended, though.

The Warren Harding administration was the most corrupt of the 20th century. Voters were frustrated with the failures of Wilson's post-war diplomacy and the high inflation that was part of a war time economy, and they installed a Republican President who owed too many favors to too many people. Harding never had to face the music because he died two years into his term.

Republican friend of mine from Texas said to me shortly before the election that he expected Trump to win and thought that the best that could be hoped for was a Harding-like presidency - stupid, subject to ridicule, corrupt and dedicated to lining the pockets of cronies, but with very little legislation passed and an isolationist foreign policy. (He thinks the two latter things are a good thing.)

The Warren Harding administration was the most corrupt of the 20th century. Voters were frustrated with the failures of Wilson's post-war diplomacy and the high inflation that was part of a war time economy, and they installed a Republican President who owed too many favors to too many people. Harding never had to face the music because he died two years into his term.

Republican friend of mine from Texas said to me shortly before the election that he expected Trump to win and thought that the best that could be hoped for was a Harding-like presidency - stupid, subject to ridicule, corrupt and dedicated to lining the pockets of cronies, but with very little legislation passed and an isolationist foreign policy. (He thinks the two latter things are a good thing.)

And after Harding came Coolidge who was elected to another term and Hoover after that.

Even a hundred years ago, a terrible presidency does not always mean that the winds will blow the other way. I wouldn't necessarily expect Pence to lose in 2020.

And after Harding came Coolidge who was elected to another term and Hoover after that.

Even a hundred years ago, a terrible presidency does not always mean that the winds will blow the other way. I wouldn't necessarily expect Pence to lose in 2020.

At this rate I feel you're possibly underestimating your own point.I wouldn't necessarily expect Trump to lose in 2020.

I don't think Trump is likely to be removed from office. I just don't think he'll choose to run again. He'll have an out. The foundations to a media empire that he's always wanted, and he'll be able to bestow the crown to the next Repub. And Pence has always played close, loyal, and quiet. I think he's the only one Trump will trust, even if he finds him a bit weird.

And after Harding came Coolidge who was elected to another term and Hoover after that.

Even a hundred years ago, a terrible presidency does not always mean that the winds will blow the other way. I wouldn't necessarily expect Pence to lose in 2020.

At this rate I feel you're possibly underestimating your own point.I wouldn't necessarily expect Trump to lose in 2020.

I don't think Trump is likely to be removed from office. I just don't think he'll choose to run again. He'll have an out. The foundations to a media empire that he's always wanted, and he'll be able to bestow the crown to the next Repub. And Pence has always played close, loyal, and quiet. I think he's the only one Trump will trust, even if he finds him a bit weird.

I don't think Trump will be removed from office either. He will slip thru loop holes deception and lies. I do think he will run for 2020 because he lives in his own fantasy world that he is the smartest President ever. He has enough boot lickers who will help him and bury their heads in the sand when he does stupid things because Trump has the power of the pen. The only way he won't run is if the walls keep closing in and he runs out of lies.

If he did resign and not run for 2020, he has the perfect excuse. He will blame everyone and the media for picking on him and making his presidency a WITCH HUNT! If he were smart as he claims, he would walk away and declare himself a hero instead of the zero he really is.

And after Harding came Coolidge who was elected to another term and Hoover after that.

Even a hundred years ago, a terrible presidency does not always mean that the winds will blow the other way. I wouldn't necessarily expect Pence to lose in 2020.

At this rate I feel you're possibly underestimating your own point.I wouldn't necessarily expect Trump to lose in 2020.

I don't think Trump is likely to be removed from office. I just don't think he'll choose to run again. He'll have an out. The foundations to a media empire that he's always wanted, and he'll be able to bestow the crown to the next Repub. And Pence has always played close, loyal, and quiet. I think he's the only one Trump will trust, even if he finds him a bit weird.

Hmm... interesting. I can certainly see Trump deciding not to run again (especially if the political winds are unfavorable circa June 2019), he has a pattern of quitting and declaring victory. I'm not as in agreement that he'd throw his weight around Pence - Trump's too much of an opportunist and has never been shy about throwing his most loyal supporters under the bus when its no longer convenient for him. Pence has a problem in that he's not the kind of Firebrand to ignite the GOP base, he's religious views are way too extreme for most fiscal-conservatives and independents and he's hitched his wagon to Trump, so he'll carry whatever negative baggage Trump leaves office with. For those reasons I think Pence would have a hard time winning a GOP primary if Trump takes his ball and goes home He'll be virtually dead in the water if Trump is ejected from the game by Mueller.

One thing I do find under-appreciated - earlier @MasterStache mentioned how Trump probably regrets ever running and winning. To some degree I think that's true (extra scrutiny, Melania's got to be pissed, etc) but he has accomplished two self-serving goals; he reduced his own taxable income 'bigely' with the tax overhaul and has ensured that most of the Trump Organization can function as pass-through entities. The changes to the estate tax will also save his heirs a ton of money. Hard to judge what this means for him since he's been opaque about his holdings, but some independent estimates say he'll save $15MM every year.It's possible they could ram through another tax-cut but he's accomplished one mission in reducing his own taxable burden, probably for the rest of his life.

And after Harding came Coolidge who was elected to another term and Hoover after that.

Even a hundred years ago, a terrible presidency does not always mean that the winds will blow the other way. I wouldn't necessarily expect Pence to lose in 2020.

At this rate I feel you're possibly underestimating your own point.I wouldn't necessarily expect Trump to lose in 2020.

I don't think Trump is likely to be removed from office. I just don't think he'll choose to run again. He'll have an out. The foundations to a media empire that he's always wanted, and he'll be able to bestow the crown to the next Repub. And Pence has always played close, loyal, and quiet. I think he's the only one Trump will trust, even if he finds him a bit weird.

Hmm... interesting. I can certainly see Trump deciding not to run again (especially if the political winds are unfavorable circa June 2019), he has a pattern of quitting and declaring victory. I'm not as in agreement that he'd throw his weight around Pence - Trump's too much of an opportunist and has never been shy about throwing his most loyal supporters under the bus when its no longer convenient for him. Pence has a problem in that he's not the kind of Firebrand to ignite the GOP base, he's religious views are way too extreme for most fiscal-conservatives and independents and he's hitched his wagon to Trump, so he'll carry whatever negative baggage Trump leaves office with. For those reasons I think Pence would have a hard time winning a GOP primary if Trump takes his ball and goes home He'll be virtually dead in the water if Trump is ejected from the game by Mueller.

One thing I do find under-appreciated - earlier @MasterStache mentioned how Trump probably regrets ever running and winning. To some degree I think that's true (extra scrutiny, Melania's got to be pissed, etc) but he has accomplished two self-serving goals; he reduced his own taxable income 'bigely' with the tax overhaul and has ensured that most of the Trump Organization can function as pass-through entities. The changes to the estate tax will also save his heirs a ton of money. Hard to judge what this means for him since he's been opaque about his holdings, but some independent estimates say he'll save $15MM every year.It's possible they could ram through another tax-cut but he's accomplished one mission in reducing his own taxable burden, probably for the rest of his life.

If Trump quits in 2020, I imagine the field of Republicans will be relatively small. Maybe 4-5 serious contenders instead of the 9-10 from 2016. He won't be supporting a Kasich or Flake. Maybe Rand? If Trump has to quit, who else will be his loyal supporters except for Evangelicals? They'll die with him to the end, and right now Pence embodies that. I don't think there is currently any other Evangelical candidate right now.

He has to know though that to avoid the estate tax you have to die at the right time. Democrats will no doubt be putting that back in their budget for 2019. It's always been the weakest Republican tax reform, and will no doubt be dropped back down to the 5 million exemption range. Maybe it won't succeed for 2019, but as soon as there is a Democrat majority, it's usually one of the first things to go.